From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    if you are like me, you probably came to my user page because you were upset by something I did. It's "the F is this person?" click. I get it. I've been there. So let me start with "sorry". I really try to edit in good faith. I'm also working on my tone. If it seems like I am accusing you of a serious infraction, I'm probably not. I'll use "WP:blahblah" if I'm trying to make a formal charge. I've run into this problem with the phrases "tendentious" and "pro-fringe" which I thought were merely descriptive terms. Also, I'm not likely going to make any sort of formal charge against anyone, since that seems like an unproductive use of my time.

    I believe in collaboration, and I am willing to edit pages on topics in which I don't have much technical knowledge. I like to function as a bright novice. If your prose confuses me, I'm going to try to fix it. Because you may know a ton more than I do about the topic, but this is an encyclopedia for the general population, and I know a thing or two about impenetrable verbiage.

    I live on the West Coast of the US. I have a BA in Philosophy and work in the entertainment industry.

    Areas of interest[edit]

    Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Psychology, Philosophy of Story, Conspiracy Mindset, Physics, Neurology, Evolutionary Psychology, Hypnosis, Meditation, Religion, Skepticism, Pseudo-medicine

    Active development[edit]

    These are articles for which I'm semi-actively editing or researching.

    Pages I've made[edit]

    Pages I've made:

    Future projects[edit]

    Possible biases[edit]

    Let's start with the pretty obvious fact that all of us are biased despite our best efforts. It's only through things like conversation, non-selected unavoidable relationships (like family, society), and the scientific method that we can slowly creep towards a best approximation of truth. Why do we need to go through the hassle of double blind randomized studies? Not because we are prone to try to cheat each other (though many of us are), but because we are so good at cheating ourselves. Okay, with that said....

    If you've used the phrase reductionist materialist, you and I will probably disagree on a lot of things, but hopefully we can disagree in a way that makes Wikipedia better. That's what I love about this Encyclopedia. It's an experiment in rationality, our only hope.

    Namaste, Cheers, Shalom, Poka-poka.

    Tools and Resources[edit]

    === Bolding Template ===


    "A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether."



    Essays I intend to write[edit]

      • Punished for caring
      • Your honor my client is a liar


    Flag of the United States.svgThis user is a native of the United States of America.
    Mortarboard.jpgThis user has a Bachelor's degree in Philosophy.
    Nuvola apps edu science.svgThis user believes science, practiced through the scientific method, is the
    most reliable way of determining the
    nature of reality.
    The Apprentice lv 4, Awarded for being a Registered Editor for 5 months 8 days and completion of 1,750 edits
    Star of life2.svgThis user is a member of WikiProject Medicine.
    FSM Logo white.svgThis user has been touched by His Noodly Appendage.